Bradpiece v. State Bar

• Decision Date: 06 February 1974
• Citation: 111 Cal.Rptr. 905,518 P.2d 337,10 Cal.3d 742
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: , 518 P.2d 337 Sidney BRADPIECE, Petitioner, v. The STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent. L.A. 30137.

Page 905

111 Cal.Rptr. 905

10 Cal.3d 742, 518 P.2d 337

Sidney BRADPIECE, Petitioner, v. The STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent.

L.A. 30137.

Supreme Court of California In Bank.

Feb. 6, 1974.

Clarence S. Hunt, Long Beach, for petitioner.

F. LaMar Forshee, Herbert M. Rosenthal and Ronald W. Stovitz, San Francisco, for respondent.

BY THE COURT.

This is a proceeding to review a recommendation of the Disciplinary Board of the State Bar of California that petitioner be suspended from the practice of law for three years.

Petitioner was admitted to practice in 1959. He has no prior record of discipline. In August of 1969 he was a sole practitioner.

The essential facts are not in dispute. Petitioner was retained by Katherine Berggreen to represent her and her minor son in connection with their claims for personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident in September 1968. In August of 1969, the Los Angeles County Superior Court approved a settlement in compromise of the minor's claim for $15,000; the court ordered payment of $3,750 in attorney's fees and $3,666.80 in medical expenses, out of the proceeds of the settlement, with the balance of $7,583.20 to be deposited in Los Angeles Federal Savings and Loan, in the name of Katherine Berggreen as trustee, not to be withdrawn without prior court order.

On the day of the order, petitioner and his clients went to the offices of the opposing party's insurance company, where they obtained one check for $15,000 made out to petitioner and his clients. They proceeded to the Security Pacific Bank, where she endorsed the check and it was deposited without her knowledge. They then proceeded to Los Angeles Federal Savings and Loan, where petitioner represented to Mrs. Berggreen that an account had been established in her name, pursuant to court order.

The account was not opened; instead petitioner had deposited the $15,000 in his own bank account, which was denominated as a trust account but used by petitioner as a general business account. Thereafter, petitioner used these funds, $11,250 of which belonged to the clients, for his own purposes.

The medical bills were not paid, and upon inquiry Mrs. Berggreen discovered there was no account in her name. She consulted another attorney and a complaint was lodged with the State Bar in November 1969. At the end of that same month, petitioner delivered to Mrs. Berggreen's new attorney a check for $11,250.

Petitioner was also representing Mrs. Berggreen in her claim arising out of the same accident. In August and September of 1969, petitioner made personal loans in an aggregate sum of $3,208 to Mrs. Berggreen, under a loose understanding of repayment upon settlement of the claims. Mrs. Berggreen testified that she assumed the loans, made for essential living expenses, were advances on her anticipated settlement. In December 1969, through her attorney, she returned to petitioner $2,208 and a promissory note for $1,000 which remains unpaid.

At the hearing before the local administrative committee, petitioner acknowledged his guilt and accepted full responsibility for the violation of his obligations. He offered no excuses for his conduct and indicated his anticipation of discipline; in the words of the local committee, his attitude was that of self-reproach.

Petitioner testified that for some years prior to August 1969, his financial affairs had been chaotic; he was unable to handle checking accounts and eventually set up the spurious trust account to avoid attachments. The settlement proceeds herein were the only funds belonging to clients which went through this trust account. In January 1970, he entered into a partnership and sound procedures were established in the maintenance of trust accounts. Upon inquiry by members of the committee, petitioner testified that while he trusted himself not to misappropriate clients' funds again, he would prefer not to handle his own financial affairs, he did not draw on the trust accounts--at his own request--and the office books were handled by a competent bookkeeper.

Petitioner's testimony also reveals the motive for the embezzlement. For some time prior to the complaint, petitioner had concealed from his wife his true financial situation, representing to her that he had substantial savings accumulated. In August 1969, his wife's family called for $8,500 from funds held for investment in her behalf. He was embarrassed to reveal his lack of funds, fearing such revelation would cause the breakup of his marriage. These domestic problems have since been resolved; petitioner's wife is fully aware of the prior concealment and helped him to make full restitution.

The local administrative committee found that petitioner had violated his oath and duty as an attorney within the meaning of section 6103, as prescribed by sections 6067 and 6068 of the Business and Professions Code, that he had violated rule 9 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, and that he had committed acts involving moral turpitude within the meaning of section 6106 of the Business and Professions Code.

The members of the local administrative committee were unable to agree on the discipline to be recommended. One member declared suspension for one year to be appropriate, and another asserted that suspension for seven years was necessary, including five years' actual suspension and two years under detailed conditions of probation. These two members indicated the surrounding circumstances, petitioner's full restitution, and his current legal practices were mitigating factors. The third member recommended disbarment, not because of the embezzlement alone, but rather because of the 'cold, calculated and deliberate' nature of the theft and petitioner's self-confessed inability to handle his business affairs.

Upon review, the disciplinary board made new findings after the presentation of additional evidence on petitioner's behalf. Petitioner objected that the evidence did not support a conclusion of a prior existing plan to convert the settlement proceeds; it was only by fortuity that the check was in a lump sum, instead of the procedure ordered by the court that the balance after fees and medical payments be made payable to the minor, the minor's trustee and the bank. The declarations of three attorneys were admitted, to the effect that petitioner had been actively associated with them in complex litigation in the three and a half years since the events herein, and had demonstrated competence, honesty and full compliance with the ethical standards of the profession. Petitioner's partner declared that during the partnership petitioner has conducted himself with propriety and integrity, that petitioner's problems had been resolved and that he was completely rehabilitated.

Petitioner's psychiatrist wrote that petitioner's misconduct was in response to economic and domestic problems, which were overcome during treatment. The doctor believed petitioner's testimony, in which he denigrated his ability to handle his business affairs, was an unrealistically negative self-assessment caused by remorse and self-criticism.

The disciplinary board by a vote of nine to five recommended suspension for three years; three of the dissenters recommended disbarment, and two felt five years' suspension including one year actual was appropriate. Petitioner does not challenge the findings of the board, but urges three years' actual suspension is an unduly severe hardship in view of the circumstances surrounding his defalcation.

In a proceeding to review the disciplinary recommendations of the State Bar for an attorney's suspension from practice, the burden is on the petitioner to show the board's recommendation is erroneous. (See, e.g., Mack v. State Bar (1970) 2 Cal.3d 440, 85 Cal.Rptr. 625, 467 P.2d 225; Reznick v. State Bar (1969) 1 Cal.3d 198, 201--202, 81 Cal.Rptr. 769, 460 P.2d 969; Corn v. State Bar (1968) 68 Cal.2d 461, 462, 67 Cal.Rptr. 401, 439 P.2d 313; Hyland v. State Bar (1963) 59 Cal.2d 765, 767, 31 Cal.Rptr. 329, 382 P.2d 369.) We have determined after a complete review of the record that to a certain extent petitioner has met this burden.

Petitioner's misappropriation of his minor client's settlement proceeds is a most grievous breach of professional ethics and morality, and such conduct is certain to endanger the confidence of the public in the legal profession. (Tardiff v. State Bar (1971) 3 Cal.3d 903, 908, 92 Cal.Rptr. 301, 479 P.2d 661; Resner v. State Bar (1960) 53 Cal.2d 605, 612, 2 Cal.Rptr. 461, 349 P.2d 956.) The usual discipline imposed for such a breach is disbarment, in the absence of strong mitigating circumstances. (Demain v. State Bar (1970) 3 Cal.3d 381, 387, 90 Cal.Rptr. 420, 475 P.2d 652; In re Freiburghouse (1959) 52 Cal.2d 514, 516, 342 P.2d 1; 1 Witkin, Cal.Procedure (2d ed.) § 200, p. 206.)

Each case, however, must be decided on its own particular facts, and there are no fixed standards as to the appropriate penalty; as a result, similar offenses have received widely varying degrees of punishment. (See Yapp v. State Bar (1965) 62 Cal.2d 809, 819, 44 Cal.Rptr. 593, 402 P.2d 361.) While the recommendations of the disciplinary board are to be given great weight, this court has plenary power to review such recommendations and make such order as it deems appropriate. Although petitioner's conduct calls for discipline to protect both the profession and the public, we find mitigating factors to be considered in determining the extent of that discipline.

Petitioner had no disciplinary record in his 10 years of practice prior to the instant events. (In re Jones (1971) 5 Cal.3d 390, 401, 96 Cal.Rptr. 448, 487 P.2d 1016; Himmel v. State Bar (1971) 4 Cal.3d 786, 799, 94 Cal.Rptr. 825, 484 P.2d 993; Yapp v. State Bar (1965) supra, 62 Cal.2d 809, 819, 44 Cal.Rptr. 593, 402 P.2d 361.) He has continued to practice law for four years since the events involved herein, successfully representing his clients'...